Quote:
|
Originally Posted by loquitur
Actually, Willravel, the more a government does, the more roles it is assigned, the more money you have it spend, the more likely it is to have issues of corruption. The more things the govt does, the more opportunities for corruption. The more things are regulated, the more need there is for exemptions and special allowances. And the more need there is for exemptions, the more chances there are that someone who gives them out can engage in what political scientists politely call "rent-seeking."
|
Precedent says otherwise. Let's look at single party, single leader nations: (formerly) Iraq, North Korea. Those are more corrupt because there is no one to challenge the single leadership of the country; the less opportunity for a ;good-guy' to step in, the greater the opportunity for corruption. That's why checks and balances is so brilliant. The problem is that there is not the same stability of checks and balances between poltical parties. I think we can all agree that 3 branches of government should be the minimum so that no one power can have the leverage to take the government. While the executive is obviously the most powerful of the three branches currently, it coulnd't take on the legislature and the judicial branches. Likewise, there should be an equalibrium and checks in our political parties. For the past 6 years, we've had all three branches of government controled by the republican party. Checks and balances is bent because a single group controls the threesome. I would suggest that the less likely that one group can control the three branches, the better off checks and balances will be.